ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the evidence filed before the CIT(A) were additional evidence, not merely clarificatory. As per Rule 46A, these needed to be confronted to the AO. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after confronting the evidence to the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to compute MAT. Instead, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue himself after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that mere narrations of bank entries without supporting evidence do not constitute a sufficient explanation. However, considering the assessee's plea and the lack of discussion on past business history, the case was remanded.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions). This was to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and address any deficiencies in their application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors and the transactions. The time gap between cash withdrawal by creditors and advancing the loan to the assessee was considered insignificant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors and the transactions. The time gap between cash withdrawal by creditors and advancing the loan to the assessee was considered insignificant.

The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment was based on assumptions without concrete evidence. The addition made on account of the difference between the sale deed price and the Valuation Officer's report was not substantiated by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the payer, and genuineness of the transactions. The same transactions were accepted by the department in the case of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT, Shimla Vs. M/s Aarham Softronics settles the issue regarding substantial expansion and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC. However, it upheld the disallowance of brought forward losses as per Section 80IA(5) and 80IC(7).

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer. This was to allow the assessee to confront relevant documents and effectively cross-examine the seller, as directed by the High Court.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer. This was to allow the assessee to confront relevant documents and effectively cross-examine the seller, as directed by the High Court.

The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) virtually gave no opportunity of hearing to the assessee before declaring the appeal defective. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that training expenses were revenue in nature and interest income from Citibank was a capital receipt. It also ruled that spouse travel expenses were business expenses and that no disallowance of interest was warranted when the assessee had sufficient own funds for asset acquisition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of interest on CWIP but allowed the appeal regarding the addition of unexplained cash credits, ordering its deletion.

The Tribunal held that compensation received for delayed possession of a flat is not 'interest' as defined under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. This compensation is for damages suffered due to the builder's failure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that training expenses were revenue in nature and interest income from Citibank was a capital receipt. It also ruled that spouse travel expenses were business expenses and that no disallowance of interest was warranted when the assessee had sufficient own funds for asset acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard when the written submissions were considered insufficient. The impugned order was set aside to ensure substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80IC in case of substantial expansion, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs Aarham Softronics. The previous year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year for 100% deduction.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to decide both the legal issue regarding the validity of assessment proceedings and the merits of the case. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not grant sufficient time to the assessee to furnish the requested information. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by upholding the addition on grounds not raised by the AO and without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut these new adverse observations, violating principles of natural justice. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was not based on the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was not based on the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was not based on the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, which was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The Tribunal held that substantial expansion allows for 100% deduction under Section 80IC.